This is my question

Gee, I have the same question about Obama's thug tactics, his free speech suppression squad in Missouri, his demands that his supporters "get in people's faces".

I am very afraid of the Obamaniacs; they are irrational and frightening. I don't have any campaign stickers or info on my car, but I do have a military decal. My car has been keyed, the mirrors smashed, the tires slashed and vile, foul languages left on my vehicle by Obama supporters.

The Obama people are thugs, and have inspired ME for the first time ever to get out there, door knock and tell MY story about just how scary Obama and his supporters are...and people are listening.

How does one determine when speech goes over the line? One reads the law, including case decisions, both Federal and local jurisdictions.

I want to know this as well. Any knowledgeable lawyers here?

I believe this stuff is VERY dangerous when done at such a high level and could very well result even in assassination. I think McCain and (especially) Palin have already gone way too far with this and should be considered being arrested.

I also wonder how much would Palin pay for one dead Obama's foot.

Advocacy of hate is protected

"except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. 2 As we [395 U.S. 444, 448] said in Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290, 297 -298 (1961), "the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action." See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 259 -261 (1937); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 134 (1966). A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control.

Brandenburg v. Ohio [get yer own cite].

Bottom line: You can preach hate all you want, but the circumstances have to be such that you (a) direct violence (that demonstates intent), which Palin et al have not done, and (b) that violence is imminent. So if you're in front of an angry mob that you've whipped up on fears of racism, that hate speech is protected. If, however, you direct that angry mob to kill an innocent passer-by, you're on the hook. And if some schmuck leaves your rally and commits violence based on what you said, you are generally off the hook because you did not advocate "imminent" lawless action.

Footnote: That's not to say that such speech is not reprehensible: it is, and too often people who slime others on the air throw up their "First Amendment rights" as some kind of defense. (This seems to be a favorite tactic of right wing talk show hosts, but it's not limited to them). That is complete and utter bullshit. The First Amendment protects you from the government interfering with your speech rights--it does not prevent other people from thinking that you're a jackass and acting on that opinion.

Hope that helps, and is in English.